Spreading the Transforming Power of Improvisation
Complexity
I've just read Dave Snowden's summary about managing complex problems. Dave is one of those guys who thinks very hard about complexity. In his thinkerly way, he comes to similar conclusions about it as Improv types. He also offers some useful distinctions between things that are complex and things that are simple, complicated or chaotic.
In Banff, there were quite a few discussions about the notion of failure. In improv, one of the biggest impediments to performance is the fear of failure - or getting distracted by perceptions of not doing well. We tried different ways to address this: should we celebrate it? fail more often? or maybe not use the word failure at all? Dave talks about safe:fail, which I guess in another way to use language to point in the right direction.
Anyway, the gist of this approach to complex systems - whether that's being on stage in a scene or tackling some horrendous organisational issue - is to try stuff and see what happens. It's an approach puts less emphasis on prediction or efforts to map the past onto an emerging future. "See what happens", keeps our options open. We can stay away from too rigidly predicting success or failure: those predictions tend to close our eyes to the multiple ripples from our stone in the pond. (I think of the old joke about the surgeon saying, "The operation was a complete success, although unfortunately the patient died.) See what happens is an invitation to be open to the detail of what emerges.
It's interesting to try small interventions and see a ripple effect. Sometimes when coaching, I'm tempted to give the client several ideas on what to do differently. I generally now try one thing and see what happens. For instance, if we're practicing a difficult conversation with a colleague, I might say, <i>Try that again, only this time focus attention on how tense or relaxed your shoulders are</i>. Very often, all sorts of aspects of the performance change.
There is some judgement about what I choose for the focus of attention: it's generally based on some intuition or experience of something which will improve the performance. I find people often do better at difficult challenges when they're less tense and not trying so hard. This closely relates to the ideas of The Inner Game. After this experiment, we can reflect on what changed and see what we want to support and what we'd like to lose. That's the spirit of Dave's approach of "probing and sensing".
(Cross posted with minor edits from my personal blog)
In Banff, there were quite a few discussions about the notion of failure. In improv, one of the biggest impediments to performance is the fear of failure - or getting distracted by perceptions of not doing well. We tried different ways to address this: should we celebrate it? fail more often? or maybe not use the word failure at all? Dave talks about safe:fail, which I guess in another way to use language to point in the right direction.
Anyway, the gist of this approach to complex systems - whether that's being on stage in a scene or tackling some horrendous organisational issue - is to try stuff and see what happens. It's an approach puts less emphasis on prediction or efforts to map the past onto an emerging future. "See what happens", keeps our options open. We can stay away from too rigidly predicting success or failure: those predictions tend to close our eyes to the multiple ripples from our stone in the pond. (I think of the old joke about the surgeon saying, "The operation was a complete success, although unfortunately the patient died.) See what happens is an invitation to be open to the detail of what emerges.
It's interesting to try small interventions and see a ripple effect. Sometimes when coaching, I'm tempted to give the client several ideas on what to do differently. I generally now try one thing and see what happens. For instance, if we're practicing a difficult conversation with a colleague, I might say, <i>Try that again, only this time focus attention on how tense or relaxed your shoulders are</i>. Very often, all sorts of aspects of the performance change.
There is some judgement about what I choose for the focus of attention: it's generally based on some intuition or experience of something which will improve the performance. I find people often do better at difficult challenges when they're less tense and not trying so hard. This closely relates to the ideas of The Inner Game. After this experiment, we can reflect on what changed and see what we want to support and what we'd like to lose. That's the spirit of Dave's approach of "probing and sensing".
(Cross posted with minor edits from my personal blog)
Add a Comment
1 Comment
-
Comment by Robin McCulloch on November 21, 2007 at 12:42pm
-
I do believe that way too much time is taken up gaging and predicting and projecting. And then looking at success or failure becomes an issue of against what are we comparing. There are just too many variables involved in anything to really compare even closely related groups let alone more differentiate groups.
Evaluating always seems to imply what I think is a false sense of objectivity. I do think it is much better to act from the inside, make choices and then reevaluate frequently to see where you are now. Having the road map should really just act as a means to place yourself not keep you on a rigid course. Einstein was right, everything changes everything. To assume that you can know what will be the best choice 5 minutes from now from here is crazy. You just make this choice and then when the 5 minutes is up see where you are and plot the next choice.
I worte something about this sort of thing at some point. If I can find it and it isn't complete gobledigook I will post it on my page.
About
Upcoming Events
Birthdays
Birthdays Today
Birthdays Tomorrow
© 2009 Created by Leif Hansen on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
You need to be a member of The Applied Improvisation Network to add comments!
Join this social network